25 Sep Why It’s Time to Retire the Phrase, the “Right Fit”

When hiring, companies often talk about finding a candidate who is a “good fit.” In the context of Diversity and Inclusion, many–or more specifically women and people of color–think of this as a euphemism to exclude people based on gender, race, and ethnicity. Thanks to conscientious leadership and corporate DEI strategy, the needle continues to move in a positive direction in terms of hiring for inherent diversity characteristics, such as race, ethnicity, age, and ability. Yet many still, consciously or unconsciously, hire for the “right fit.”  What that means is that while companies may hire candidates who look different, they are still hiring someone who conforms to a central norm—in other words someone who thinks and behaves “like us.”

The First Paradigm of Unconscious Bias: Communication Style

The first paradigm of unconscious bias is based on communication style differences: an unconscious bias about the way others communicate often leads to negative assumptions.

Companies are using a variety of tactics to diversify their candidate pool: building relationships with employee resource groups, expanding their networks by partnering with historically Black or Latino universities that represent diverse talent, and highlighting inclusive benefits, among others. Where bias kicks in, however, is when the interviewer is sitting across from a candidate and the candidate begins to speak.

Communication styles are learned by groups to reinforce cultural values.  Unlike values, which are very stable, communication styles can change more readily. For example, people may change style to attempt to mimic the person with whom they are communicating, to be accommodating. However, that may feel patronizing or unnatural. We tend to continue being most comfortable with our earliest-learned communication style.

A direct communication style says, “I show you respect, save time and get tasks done quickly, by telling you precisely what I want, think and need.” The focus is on task. The US workplace is highly normed around a direct communication style, which, coincidentally, research shows is used by 55-88% of White, northern European males (Kochman, 1981).

A person who uses an indirect communication style may ask questions or go through a third party.  The value underlying this style is one of relationship. “I want to get the job done but not at the risk of damaging our relationship, so I will be less direct and avoid any possible embarrassment, insults or conflicts.” Research shows that 55 to 88% of women tend to use this style (Kochman, 1981).

When Styles Collide

Both these styles are good, right, and effective, in context. The disconnect happens when people of different communication styles attempt to communicate. That’s when the “right fit” kicks in. For example, a hiring manager at a top tech firm asked a colleague to review three candidates, two men and a woman, for a top tech position. They responded that the woman candidate “didn’t seem like a good fit, not technical enough.” When challenged, they could not explain why. After all, this candidate had an engineering degree from MIT, a history of leadership positions with other tech firms, and had scored high on the company’s internal technical proficiency test.

Imagine how a “high tech” person using an indirect communication style might come across. In the case above, bias, unconsciously, slipped in because of a difference in style. Most of the others on the tech team used a direct style, so this candidate using a different style seemed not to fit in.

Same Style, Different Face

People using the same communication style can also stir unconscious bias when a style used differs from one’s expectations. Let’s look at direct communication style again. Ask yourself these questions: What adjectives might you use to describe a man, particularly a White male, using a direct communication style? “Give me the report by end of day.” What about when a woman uses that same style? Typical answers when this example is used in training are: The man, particularly a White male, using a direct style may come across as confident and clear. The woman, whether Black, White, or Latino, may be perceived as a little bossy. Respondents thought a Black or Latino male using this same style might even be perceived as aggressive. This is the impact of the intersection of communication style and unconscious bias.

Beyond Race and Gender

Interacting with others is not only impacted by race, gender and facial features (read more about physiognomy here). It’s combined with everything else related to that person. When a person begins to speak we hear their communication style, which is influenced by their own culture. We respond from our own cultural lens, which is impacted by our perception filters, in order to interpret their words. Those filters include our own culture, past experience, and underlying assumptions, stereotypes, or generalizations.

In short, what that means is this: we are predisposed to accept information that’s presented the way we would present it ourselves. At lower levels, from entry level to supervisor positions, companies assume they can manage different styles. But when it comes to moving up within an organization, that’s where exclusion unconsciously kicks in. So many companies are committed to good intensions and adopt amazing DEI practices. But at the very top it remains largely White men. Many women and people of color who have made it into the C suite may have adapted their style, knowingly or unknowingly, to be accepted.  It often boils down to the “right” fit and what is considered the norm for “professional behavior.”

Expanding Company Reward Bands

The challenge for companies lies with expanding their “reward and recognition band.” Are employees more likely to be recognized and rewarded if they communicate or complete a task based on dominant US cultural styles and values? If so, the result is that companies hire visible diversity but lose real diversity by unknowingly conform to a central norm. For example, two employees may complete the same number of widgets, but as you move up in a company, the employee whose style is more consistent with the US norm is more likely to bet promoted.

That’s when it’s critical to ask if the style difference impacts the ability for someone to complete the task at or above standard. This is not about sacrificing cost, safety, legal standards, or productivity. Diversity and merit are not, and never have been, mutually exclusive.

A culture of innovation depends on diverse thinking and learning styles, and that comes in many packages. A DEI strategy that starts with leadership and permeates across a company, from hiring and advancement to internal and external communications, and that embraces a range of styles and behavioral differences, will drive success for the future.